SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) speaks to the media after the second night of the first Democratic presidential debate on June 27, 2019 in Miami. (Photo: Cliff Hawkins/Getty Images)
Praising Sanders for His Call to Ban Law Enforcement Using Facial Recognition Tools, Digital Rights Group Urges All Presidential Hopefuls to Follow Suit
"Every single 2020 candidate should be calling for a ban on this invasive, biased, and dangerous technology."
Aug 19, 2019
The digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future urged all 2020 presidential candidates Monday to follow the lead of Sen. Bernie Sanders in calling for a ban on law enforcement's use of facial recognition technology.
Fight for the Future--which launched a campaign last month demanding a national ban on government use of the technology--praised Sanders for including the issue in a comprehensive criminal justice reform plan the Independent senator from Vermont unveiled Sunday.
"The rapid spread of facial recognition surveillance is one of the most urgent threats to our basic freedom and human rights today," Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement. "Every single 2020 candidate should be calling for a ban on this invasive, biased, and dangerous technology."
The presidential hopeful's Justice and Safety for All plan aims to "ensure law enforcement accountability and robust oversight" in part by banning "the use of facial recognition software for policing," according to the Sanders campaign website.
"Police use of facial recognition software is the latest example of Orwellian technology that violates our privacy and civil liberties under the guise of public safety and it must stop," a spokesperson for the campaign told Recode. "Bernie is proud to join cities like San Francisco in banning the use of this technology for policing, and as president will enact a nationwide ban on facial recognition software for policing, including at the state and local levels."
Fight for the Future, in its statement Monday, noted that "while other candidates, including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker have previously expressed concern about face scanning and biometric surveillance, so far none have incorporated a ban on the technology into their platform."
"Banning facial recognition is not a radical idea. It's common sense," said Greer. "Allowing government agencies to build a face scanning panopticon with no oversight or accountability is reckless and puts people in danger. There's growing bipartisan support to rein in biometric surveillance. Any 2020 candidate that wants to be taken seriously on tech and civil liberties issues needs to be calling for a ban."
Pointing to concerns over how facial recognition technology threatens safety, privacy rights, and public trust, civil liberties advocates have long pushed lawmakers at all levels of government to take on the issue. Critics of the technology--which has a record of gender and racial bias--also have pressured developers such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft to refuse to sell their software to law enforcement agencies in the United States and around the world.
Although the U.S. House Ovesight Committee held historic hearings earlier this year on the threats posed by facial recognition technology, there are currently no federal regulations for government agencies or other entities. Some cities--such as Oakland and Somerville, Massachusetts--have enacted local bans, but the technology is currently being used by law enforcement without nationwide rules.
Recode outlined Monday:
Many law enforcement agencies across the U.S. today use facial recognition technology to identify anyone deemed suspicious. Several government agencies--including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the FBI--use facial recognition tech to help detain and arrest individuals. Police departments in at least two U.S. cities have publicly employed Amazon's version of the technology, called Rekognition. (One of those cities, Orlando, canceled the partnership amid public scrutiny and technical limitations.)
"Having a candidate come out now and specifically call for a ban is significant," Greer told Recode. "It sets the bar that this is a popular position for candidates to take on this issue rather than saying something more wishy-washy like 'we'll take a look at it.'"
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future urged all 2020 presidential candidates Monday to follow the lead of Sen. Bernie Sanders in calling for a ban on law enforcement's use of facial recognition technology.
Fight for the Future--which launched a campaign last month demanding a national ban on government use of the technology--praised Sanders for including the issue in a comprehensive criminal justice reform plan the Independent senator from Vermont unveiled Sunday.
"The rapid spread of facial recognition surveillance is one of the most urgent threats to our basic freedom and human rights today," Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement. "Every single 2020 candidate should be calling for a ban on this invasive, biased, and dangerous technology."
The presidential hopeful's Justice and Safety for All plan aims to "ensure law enforcement accountability and robust oversight" in part by banning "the use of facial recognition software for policing," according to the Sanders campaign website.
"Police use of facial recognition software is the latest example of Orwellian technology that violates our privacy and civil liberties under the guise of public safety and it must stop," a spokesperson for the campaign told Recode. "Bernie is proud to join cities like San Francisco in banning the use of this technology for policing, and as president will enact a nationwide ban on facial recognition software for policing, including at the state and local levels."
Fight for the Future, in its statement Monday, noted that "while other candidates, including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker have previously expressed concern about face scanning and biometric surveillance, so far none have incorporated a ban on the technology into their platform."
"Banning facial recognition is not a radical idea. It's common sense," said Greer. "Allowing government agencies to build a face scanning panopticon with no oversight or accountability is reckless and puts people in danger. There's growing bipartisan support to rein in biometric surveillance. Any 2020 candidate that wants to be taken seriously on tech and civil liberties issues needs to be calling for a ban."
Pointing to concerns over how facial recognition technology threatens safety, privacy rights, and public trust, civil liberties advocates have long pushed lawmakers at all levels of government to take on the issue. Critics of the technology--which has a record of gender and racial bias--also have pressured developers such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft to refuse to sell their software to law enforcement agencies in the United States and around the world.
Although the U.S. House Ovesight Committee held historic hearings earlier this year on the threats posed by facial recognition technology, there are currently no federal regulations for government agencies or other entities. Some cities--such as Oakland and Somerville, Massachusetts--have enacted local bans, but the technology is currently being used by law enforcement without nationwide rules.
Recode outlined Monday:
Many law enforcement agencies across the U.S. today use facial recognition technology to identify anyone deemed suspicious. Several government agencies--including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the FBI--use facial recognition tech to help detain and arrest individuals. Police departments in at least two U.S. cities have publicly employed Amazon's version of the technology, called Rekognition. (One of those cities, Orlando, canceled the partnership amid public scrutiny and technical limitations.)
"Having a candidate come out now and specifically call for a ban is significant," Greer told Recode. "It sets the bar that this is a popular position for candidates to take on this issue rather than saying something more wishy-washy like 'we'll take a look at it.'"
The digital rights advocacy group Fight for the Future urged all 2020 presidential candidates Monday to follow the lead of Sen. Bernie Sanders in calling for a ban on law enforcement's use of facial recognition technology.
Fight for the Future--which launched a campaign last month demanding a national ban on government use of the technology--praised Sanders for including the issue in a comprehensive criminal justice reform plan the Independent senator from Vermont unveiled Sunday.
"The rapid spread of facial recognition surveillance is one of the most urgent threats to our basic freedom and human rights today," Evan Greer, deputy director of Fight for the Future, said in a statement. "Every single 2020 candidate should be calling for a ban on this invasive, biased, and dangerous technology."
The presidential hopeful's Justice and Safety for All plan aims to "ensure law enforcement accountability and robust oversight" in part by banning "the use of facial recognition software for policing," according to the Sanders campaign website.
"Police use of facial recognition software is the latest example of Orwellian technology that violates our privacy and civil liberties under the guise of public safety and it must stop," a spokesperson for the campaign told Recode. "Bernie is proud to join cities like San Francisco in banning the use of this technology for policing, and as president will enact a nationwide ban on facial recognition software for policing, including at the state and local levels."
Fight for the Future, in its statement Monday, noted that "while other candidates, including Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Cory Booker have previously expressed concern about face scanning and biometric surveillance, so far none have incorporated a ban on the technology into their platform."
"Banning facial recognition is not a radical idea. It's common sense," said Greer. "Allowing government agencies to build a face scanning panopticon with no oversight or accountability is reckless and puts people in danger. There's growing bipartisan support to rein in biometric surveillance. Any 2020 candidate that wants to be taken seriously on tech and civil liberties issues needs to be calling for a ban."
Pointing to concerns over how facial recognition technology threatens safety, privacy rights, and public trust, civil liberties advocates have long pushed lawmakers at all levels of government to take on the issue. Critics of the technology--which has a record of gender and racial bias--also have pressured developers such as Amazon, Google, and Microsoft to refuse to sell their software to law enforcement agencies in the United States and around the world.
Although the U.S. House Ovesight Committee held historic hearings earlier this year on the threats posed by facial recognition technology, there are currently no federal regulations for government agencies or other entities. Some cities--such as Oakland and Somerville, Massachusetts--have enacted local bans, but the technology is currently being used by law enforcement without nationwide rules.
Recode outlined Monday:
Many law enforcement agencies across the U.S. today use facial recognition technology to identify anyone deemed suspicious. Several government agencies--including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the FBI--use facial recognition tech to help detain and arrest individuals. Police departments in at least two U.S. cities have publicly employed Amazon's version of the technology, called Rekognition. (One of those cities, Orlando, canceled the partnership amid public scrutiny and technical limitations.)
"Having a candidate come out now and specifically call for a ban is significant," Greer told Recode. "It sets the bar that this is a popular position for candidates to take on this issue rather than saying something more wishy-washy like 'we'll take a look at it.'"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.